How do I into Luddy Dubs?
I recall some infograph made by /lit/ but I can't find it anymore.
>>7742810
Avoid secondary literature. Start with the Tractatus, then read the Brown and Blue Books, then read Philosophical Investigations.
>>7742810
>>7743478
Why do you people jerk it over the Tractatus so much when Wittgenstein himself largely discredit the work later on in his life?
>>7743488
To fully appreciate PI you need Tractatus.
>>7743501
Yes.
>>7743485
Hey, I made this 3 years ago and oh wow its a mess!
It's still mostly true, but I'd add a bit of information about Kierkegaard. I may try to clean this up and post another one if I have time tomorrow. I still strongly believe that Wittgenstein is a biographical philosopher in that an understanding of his life is important to an understanding of his philosophy.
>>7743488
It's sort of possible to synthesize Tractatus with PI if you ignore certain parts and use the middle works like the Remarks as a guide. Also, the Tractatus is arguably the work which has had more influence on post-Wittgensteinian philosophy, for all the wrong reasons.
>>7743511
I still strongly believe that Wittgenstein is a biographical philosopher in that an understanding of his life is important to an understanding of his philosophy.
Can you say more about this? Not asking for a biography but if you need to include pieces in an explanation that's obviously fine.
>>7743526
Sure. I guess there's four main reasons I'd make that claim off the top of my head.
1: Wittgenstein in his later and more interesting (subjective,) work writes for people who find themselves in forms of philosophical trouble. Investigations sets out a methodology which is often referred to as "therapy" for enabling people to help themselves out of their philosophical confusion. He explicitly did not write for everyone, only for people who suffered from the same philosophical anxiety/confusion as him. Part of understanding what philosophical confusion looks like is understanding what sort of life Wittgenstein led.
2. The difference between the Tractatus and the Investigations leads to a number of questions about the development of a man changing his mind. Therefore we have a wealth of information to help us understand PI in terms of its development, a lot of which is tied into Wittgenstein's life at the time.
3. There's a whole spiritual / religious / aesthetic / ethical aspect to Wittgenstein's philosophy which is vaguely hinted at in the main published works but he was often much more vocal about with colleagues and friends throughout his life.
4. This is a silly reason, but he just had a ridiculous and crazy and hugely interesting life that's well worth reading about!
>>7743567
>4. This is a silly reason, but he just had a ridiculous and crazy and hugely interesting life that's well worth reading about!
I know only a little about him, his parents and siblings, giving away much of his inheritance, his relationship with other philosophers, finishing TLP at war, etc.
Is there a Bio you would recommend, I see the Monk around in every local bookstore.
If I have no mathematical background can I even bother reading Ludwig?
>>7743580
The Monk one is the best one out at the moment in my opinion, it's a really great work which tries to tie his philosophy into the biography throughout, but there's also a new one by Hollingworth coming out soon, and I loved Hollingworth's biography of St. Augustine.
>>7743603
...
>>7743603
I'll have to answer briefly as it's quite late here, but I'll check back in on the thread tomorrow too.
I can see why they were so misinterpreted by logical positivists, I wouldn't be surprised if particularly 7 was written specifically to be so.
I think 6.53 and to a lesser extent 6.54 are statements that carry over into the later work in really satisfying ways. 6.54 in particular, the ladder statement is absolutely mystifying and speaks to the notion that the Tractatus is itself a form of therapy instead of a doctrinal work, perhaps.
>>7743652
To clarify, obviously the Tractatus wasn't written directly aimed at logical positivism or the Vienna circle as it predated it, but some of the tenets of logical positivism were floating in the Germanic philosophical haze for centuries prior.
I just picked up the Ray Monk biography from the library. So far it's quite interesting how Weininger is a seminal influence to Wittgenstein. The entire section on Weininger was quite interesting itself.
>>7743511
>. I may try to clean this up and post another one if I have time tomorrow.
bloody do it
>>7743511
>for all the wrong reasons.
Going to need you to elaborate.
>>7743706
Okay, a couple of remarks on the ladder.
So, first of all, the Tractatus doesn't really contain many arguments as such. There's certainly an entire school of thought which tries to reason away 6.54 and pretend that it doesn't exist as part of the Tractatus. There are all sorts of arguments that it only refers to a limited number of propositions, that it's meant purely metaphorically, and so on.
There are certainly sentences in PI which also threaten to undermine the work as a whole if taken literally.
However I like the ladder sentence because it implies that what the Tractatus is really getting at is not a set of logical rules or atomic principles but instead an aesthetic or mystical attitude which is intended to be "discovered" through an understanding of the text. Recently there have been comparisons made to the way we teach science at schools. Remember how in Chemistry/Physics whatever, each year you'd learn that what you learned the year prior wasn't the real explanation but a simplified approximation. But imagine trying to understand graduate level physics without having been raised through a series of stepping stones, like a ladder.
>>7744705
>>7744717
I will, but I've got quite a busy day at work today also.
>>7744717
Okay, I guess what I'm mainly referring to is the Vienna circle's lauding of the Tractatus and the influence its had through that group. The Tractatus is more palatable to modern philosophy as it's not so radical in its methodology and criticism of philosophy. That's all well and good, but the Vienna circle misinterpreted the Tractatus massively, and were explicitly told so by Wittgenstein meeting with Schlick and a couple other members.
Certainly some parts of the later Wittgenstein regarding language have been influential, but arguably Austin and the pragmatists were more influential in that sense because their philosophy of language was loaded with less assumptions about the nature of philosophy/mind/logic/etc than Wittgenstein's.
>>7743070
This is horrible advice. Do the opposite of everything this post says.
>>7746354
So, read secondary literature, but, read PI first, then Blue and Brown, then TLP, but, don't actually read PI, Brown Books and TLP?
This is confusing.
Melvyn Bragg discusses Wittgenstein and these questions with Ray Monk (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southampton), Barry Smith (Lecturer in Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London), and Marie McGinn (Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of York).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3OwIV5oro
>>7746361
Almost. Read some secondary literature (Monk's biography is a good place to start as the chart above suggests), then PI, after which you should know enough about his philosophy to attempt his other works. Reading TLP without any secondary sources, especially if you're unfamiliar with Witt's other works and method of philosophizing, will be a confusing waste of time.
>>7746390
In Monk's bio he says that three of his brothers killed themselves. Well, two for sure, and the other presumed to have done so somewhere in America. But here he says two?
Is it possible for me to comprehend this guy, if I am completely new to philosophy? Should I start with them Greeks?
>>7746547
Yes, you will be able to understand him on some level with the right introduction and approach, but the work won't be relevant to you at all unless you've already experienced serious philosophical confusion on your own time.
So I made a couple of changes and updated a few bits of information on this image, 3 years on...
I'm no graphic designer, but I tried to make it more legible than the old one too.
>>7747837
Thanks for the effort mate. I thought you said you were going to include Kierkegaard in this chart?
If you were, what would you say about him, or his connection to Wittgenstein?
>>7747878
I was going to, but I realized that pretending Kierkegaard was "necessary" for getting into Wittgenstein in any real sense would display too much of my bias.
There are a few methodological similarities. Kierkegaard tries to use pseudonyms to address that which he "cannot say" himself about faith, and there's something of an echo of Tractatus 6.54 in some parts of Fear & Trembling.
Genia Schonsbaumfeld who actually lectures with Ray Monk at Southhampton (or did while I was still in academia at least,) wrote an excellent book on the relationship between Kierk and Witty.
>>7747893
>wrote an excellent book on the relationship between Kierk and Witty.
This is something I'm definitely interested in. Much more interesting, to me, than comparing his relationship with someone like Heidegger.
http://www.amazon.com/Confusion-Spheres-Kierkegaard-Wittgenstein-Philosophy/dp/0199581967/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1456538187&sr=1-1
It's actually much cheaper than I would have thought. Here's a link for you.
I used some parts of this in my dissertation and enjoyed it, but haven't read the full book.
Where can I get a good and cheap edition of Garth Hallett's commentary on PI?
>>7747837
>jump straight into PI, following the reading suggestions
?
Why does anyone here read him? He's a joke in the logic community
>>7749000
It's a good thing I'm not concerned with his writing on logic then.
Sophomoric reading my lad.
>>7749012
how was your reply an answer?
>>7749000
>look at me i'm so smart!
>>7749000
>a community that can be destroyed by repeatedly shouting "Münchhausen" at them
wew
>>7743593
Sure. As you have seen, he is mainly known as a philosopher of language.
>>7747939
Oops, I meant the reading tips on the image at the bottom!
>>7742810
If you don't know maths prepare yourself for a good ol' beating, Brosteph...
>>7743511
Whoa, the Wittgensteinfag is still alive? Glad to see you again, dude.
